"28 Days Later..." we're still here and we're still scared...

Rating: 10/10 (7 October 2004)

...And like the so-called "rage" virus that is the main antagonist in this British horror film, "28 Days Later..." surprised American audiences with its frightening and visionary premise of the world being overrun by a virus, and even though this scenario is not new to the movie-going public, the ideas presented in this film are.
Beginning with a small band of animal-rights activists who break into a laboratory to free some monkeys, the film quickly goes into overdrive in depicting the horror that is released with them as a result: the monkeys had been infected with a virus that turns its victims into raving, homicidal maniacs. The virus soon gets out and pretty much decimates the entire population of London.
"28 Days Later," we're introduced to the formerly comatose Jim (Cillian Murphy), who wakes up in a deserted hospital and proceeds to walk the eerily silent streets of London. He naturally yells and gets no response (of course, this is not a wise thing to do). A newspaper caught in the wind informs him that a virus got loose and transformed people into madmen.
He meets Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) and together the three of them stalk the lonely streets of this dark and dangerous metropolis that's teeming with the deadly "infected." They meet Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) and together, they all set off into the country in search of a possible cure for the virus and safety, which is at an isolated mansion that has been heavily fortified by a loose platoon of soldiers, led by Major Henry West (Christopher Eccleston), and soon Jim and party realize that they are up against something much more sinister.
"28 Days Later..." has been dubbed by some genre purists as a "zombie flick," but director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland have insisted it isn't and I'm inclined to agree with them. Though "28 Days Later..." was greatly influenced by the works of American director George A. Romero (who made the daring "Living Dead" trilogy and basically defined a new genre of horror film-making), it's not a zombie flick because the so-called "living dead" in this movie are still technically alive, just... "infected."
That's about all I'm going to say about that, instead I'm going to turn my focus to the craft and ingenuity that went into this film's production. Even if one wants to call it a zombie flick (I'm not going to disagree with anyone that does), the horror and gore take a backseat to a larger social question about human nature: Is it in our blood to kill?
Alex Garland might think so, since the virus has to be in the blood to infect its victim and transform them into what they are in the film. And if someone does get infected, any survivors around have 20 seconds (or is it 30?) to kill them before the infected individual has a chance to wreak havoc.
I missed this movie when it laid siege to the theaters last summer and proceeded to scare the daylights out of its viewers. But in today's times, an observant person might assume that this movie provides a valuable commentary about the dangerous days that we're living in. The American people are scared and "28 Days Later..." may have provided the jolts we needed to shake us out of our disillusionment with modern times.
An MTV (MTV?) special I watched a while ago talked about how people want to be scared out of their wits nowadays; just look at the massive success of movies like "Cabin Fever" (another movie about a deadly virus on the loose) or Zack Snyder's remake of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," which was released earlier this year.
"28 Days Later..." is an eerie and frightening film that I highly recommend to any horror fan or anyone who wants to escape reality and slip into another darker, deadlier one.
10/10